Cookies on The Times of India website

The Times of India has updated its Privacy and Cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the better experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the The Times of India website. However, you can change your cookie setting at any time by clicking on our
Cookie Policy at any time. You can also see our
Privacy Policy

Disturbing debate on Rahul Gandhi’s Hindu-ness: India’s top national parties are reducing the importance of being Indian

Write for TOI Blogs

Interested in blogging for timesofindia.com? We will be happy to have you on board as a blogger, if you have the knack for writing. Just drop in a mail at toiblogs@timesinternet.in with a brief bio and we will get in touch with you.

Disturbing debate on Rahul Gandhi’s Hindu-ness: India’s top national parties are reducing the importance of being Indian

The loud and coarse debate over which register Rahul Gandhi signed when he visited Somnath temple has led to politicians of both Congress and BJP using an awkward hyphenation – the ‘non-Hindu’. With campaigning peaking in Gujarat, no one has bothered about how this ‘Hindu vs non-Hindu’ debate has marginalised those who are not Hindus. It has erased the many unique distinctions among different groups and reduced them to one broad, generalised category – the non-Hindu.

You are not a Christian or a Parsi or a Muslim or a Jew. You are a non-Hindu. Sit on the sidelines and watch us fight over who the real Hindu is, is the message BJP and Congress have driven home.

Given the manner in which both parties are fighting over the issue, it seems that the ‘Hindu’ is an exclusive club for the privileged. To become a member, you have to meet the stiff criteria set by the club management and be ready for a rejection.

By questioning Rahul’s Hindu identity, the BJP has challenged his membership to the club and asked him to establish his credentials. Although BJP leaders haven’t said it in as many words, the implicit message is that Rahul does not deserve to ask for the votes of Hindus in Gujarat because his Hindu credentials are questionable. BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra even demanded that Rahul “must say who he actually is”.

Congress, on the other hand, released Rahul’s photograph with a janeu to establish that he is a ‘janeu-dhari Hindu’. By putting the spotlight on his janeu, the Gandhi scion seems to be saying that he is more Hindu than most Hindus. He has also put on the backseat the identity of being an Indian.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this entire debate is the normalisation of the idea that being a Hindu is the primary identity one is expected to have to make an impact in an election in this country. Your identity as an Indian is less important.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Rahul is in fact a Christian. Does he in any way become less eligible to ask for votes from Indians who live in Gujarat? One would like to believe that 70 years after Independence, one’s Indian identity matters more than one’s religious identity in an election. But going by this debate, it does not seem so.

Besides, if being a Hindu is so important that senior leaders of national political parties have to ask each other for proof of their Hindu identity, what about those who are not born into the Hindu faith? Should they be seen as lesser mortals because the accident of birth has not given them membership to this privileged club?

It is also interesting to note that no one is questioning how a prominent body like the Somnath temple trust can have, prima facie, a discriminatory practice of maintaining a register only for non-Hindus.

There are those who suggest that it is a security measure against possible terror attacks, but this implicitly suggests that violent terrorists exist only in other religions. That a simple religious filter would help in weeding out all troublemakers and terrorists.

If security concerns are not the reason and the management is anxious that non-Hindus may do something to hurt sentiment of Hindus, then they are underestimating the knowledge and sensitivity of non-Hindus. Most Indians know the decorum of a place of worship, no matter which religion they belong to.

It was only in January that the constitution bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that election of a candidate would be declared null and void if votes were sought on the basis of religion, race, caste, community or language. Of course, neither Congress nor BJP have directly appealed to voters on the basis of religion, but the campaign in Gujarat has definitely taken on a religious overtone. It is for legal experts to decide whether that line between legality and illegality has been crossed.